CHAPTER 13.

CHRIST CLOTHED WITH THE TRUE SUBSTANCE OF HUMAN NATURE.

The heads of this chapter are, I. The orthodoxy doctrine as to
the true humanity of our Saviour, proved from many passages of Scripture, sec.
1. II. Refutation of the impious objections of the Marcionites, Manichees, and
similar heretics, sec. 2-4.

Sections.

1. Proof of the true humanity of Christ, against the Manichees and
Marcionites.

2. Impious objections of heretics further discussed. Six objections
answered.

3. Other eight objections answered.

4. Other three objections answered.

1. OF the divinity of Christ, which has elsewhere been
established by clear and solid proofs, I presume it were superfluous again to
treat. It remains, therefore, to see how, when clothed with our flesh, he
fulfilled the office of Mediator. In ancient times, the reality of his human
nature was impugned by the Manichees and Marcionites, the latter figuring to
themselves a phantom instead of the body of Christ, and the former dreaming of
his having been invested with celestial flesh. The passages of Scripture
contradictory to both are numerous and strong. The blessing is not promised in
a heavenly seed, or the mask of a man, but the seed of Abraham and Jacob; nor
is the everlasting throne promised to an aerial man, but to the Son of David,
and the fruit of his loins. Hence, when manifested in the flesh, he is called
the Son of David and Abraham, not because he was born of a virgin, and yet
created in the air, but because, as Paul explains, he was "made of the seed of
David, according to the flesh," (Rom. 1:3), as the same apostle elsewhere says,
that he came of the Jews (Rom. 9:5). Wherefore, our Lord himself not contented
with the name of man, frequently calls himself the Son of man, wishing to
express more clearly that he was a man by true human descent. The Holy Spirit
having so often, by so many organs, with so much care and plainness, declared a
matter which in itself is not abstruse, who could have thought that mortals
would have had the effrontery to darken it with their glosses? Many other
passages are at hand, were it wished to produce more: for instance, that one of
Paul, that "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman," (Gal. 4:4), and
innumerable others, which show that he was subject to hunger, thirst, cold, and
the other infirmities of our nature. But from the many we must chiefly select
those which may conduce to build up our minds in true faith, as when it is
said, "Verily, he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the
seed of Abraham," "that through death he might destroy him that had the power
of death," (Heb. 2:16, 14). Again, "Both he that sanctifieth and they who are
sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them
brethren." "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest." (Heb. 2:11,
17). Again "We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling
of our infirmities," (Heb. 4:15), and the like. To the same effect is the
passage to which we lately referred, in which Paul distinctly declares, that
the sins of the world behoved to be expiated in our flesh (Rom. 8:3). And
certainly every thing which the Father conferred on Christ pertains to us for
this reason, that "he is the head," that from him the whole body is "fitly
joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth," (Eph.
4:16). Nay, in no other way could it hold true as is said, that the Spirit was
given to him without measure (John 1:16), and that out of his fulness have all
we received; since nothing could be more absurd than that God, in his own
essence, should be enriched by an adventitious gift. For this reason also,
Christ himself elsewhere says, "For their sakes I sanctify myself," (John
17:19).
2. The passages which they produce in
confirmation of their error are absurdly wrested, nor do they gain any thing by
their frivolous subtleties when they attempt to do away with what I have now
adduced in opposition to them. Marcion imagines that Christ, instead of a body,
assumed a phantom, because it is elsewhere said, that he was made in the
likeness of man, and found in fashion as a man. Thus he altogether overlooks
what Paul is then discussing (Phil. 2:7). His object is not to show what kind
of body Christ assumed, but that, when he might have justly asserted his
divinity he was pleased to exhibit nothing but the attributes of a mean and
despised man. For, in order to exhort us to submission by his example, he
shows, that when as God he might have displayed to the world the brightness of
his glory, he gave up his right, and voluntarily emptied himself; that he
assumed the form of a servant, and, contented with that humble condition,
suffered his divinity to be concealed under a veil of flesh. Here,
unquestionably, he explains not what Christ was, but in what way he acted. Nay,
from the whole context it is easily gathered, that it was in the true nature of
man that Christ humbled himself. For what is meant by the words, he was "found
in fashion as a man," but that for a time, instead of being resplendent with
divine glory, the human form only appeared in a mean and abject condition? Nor
would the words of Peter, that he was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened
by the Spirits" (1 Pet. 3:18), hold true, unless the Son of God had become weak
in the nature of man. This is explained more clearly by Paul, when he declares
that "he was crucified through weakness," (2 Cor. 13:4). And hence his
exaltation; for it is distinctly said, that Christ acquired new glory after he
humbled himself. This could fitly apply only to a man endued with a body and a
soul. Manes dreams of an aerial body, because Christ is called the second Adam,
the Lord from heaven. But the apostle does not there speak of the essence of
his body as heavenly, but of the spiritual life which derived from Christ
quickens us (I Cor. 15:47). This life Paul and Peter, as we have seen, separate
from his flesh. Nay, that passage admirably confirms the doctrine of the
orthodox, as to the human nature of Christ. If his body were not of the same
nature with ours, there would be no soundness in the argument which Paul
pursues with so much earnestness,--If Christ is risen we shall rise also; if we
rise not, neither has Christ risen. Whatever be the cavils by which the ancient
Manichees, or their modern disciples, endeavour to evade this, they cannot
succeed. It is a frivolous and despicable evasion to say, that Christ is called
the Son of man, because he was promised to men; it being obvious that, in the
Hebrew idiom, the Son of man means a true man: and Christ, doubtless, retained
the idiom of his own tongue.245 Moreover, there cannot be a doubt as
to what is to be understood by the sons of Adam. Not to go farther, a passage
in the eighth psalm, which the apostles apply to Christ, will abundantly
suffice: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that
thou visitest him?" (Ps 8:4). Under this figure is expressed the true humanity
of Christ. For although he was not immediately descended of an earthly father,
yet he originally sprang from Adam. Nor could it otherwise be said in terms of
the passage which we have already quoted, "Forasmuch, then, as the children are
partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;"
these words plainly proving that he was an associate and partner in the same
nature with ourselves. In this sense also it is said, that "both he that
sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one." The context proves
that this refers to a community of nature; for it is immediately added, "For
which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren," (Heb. 2:11). Had he said
at first that believers are of God, where could there have been any ground for
being ashamed of persons possessing such dignity? But when Christ of his
boundless grace associates himself with the mean and ignoble, we see why it was
said that "he is not ashamed." It is vain to object, that in this way the
wicked will be the brethren of Christ; for we know that the children of God are
not born of flesh and blood, but of the Spirit through faith. Therefore, flesh
alone does not constitute the union of brotherhood. But although the apostle
assigns to believers only the honour of being one with Christ, it does not
however follow, that unbelievers have not the same origin according to the
flesh; just as when we say that Christ became man, that he might make us sons
of God, the expression does not extend to all classes of persons; the
intervention of faith being necessary to our being spiritually ingrafted into
the body of Christ. A dispute is also ignorantly raised as to the term
first-born. It is alleged that Christ ought to have been the first son
of Adam, in order that he might be the first-born among the brethren (Rom.
8:29). But primogeniture refers not to age, but to degree of honour and
pre-eminence of virtue. There is just as little colour for the frivolous
assertion that Christ assumed the nature of man, and not that of angels (Heb.
2:16), because it was the human race that he restored to favour. The apostle,
to magnify the honour which Christ has conferred upon us, contrasts us with the
angels, to whom we are in this respect preferred. And if due weight is given to
the testimony of Moses (Gen. 3:15), when he says that the seed of the woman
would bruise the head of the serpent, the dispute is at an end. For the words
there used refer not to Christ alone, but to the whole human race. Since the
victory was to be obtained for us by Christ, God declares generally, that the
posterity of the woman would overcome the devil. From this it follows, that
Christ is a descendant of the human race, the purpose of God in thus addressing
Eve being to raise her hopes, and prevent her from giving way to despair.
3. The passages in which Christ is called the
seed of Abraham, and the fruit of the loins of David, those persons, with no
less folly than wickedness, wrap up in allegory. Had the term seed been
used allegorically, Paul surely would not have omitted to notice it, when he
affirms clearly, and without figure, that the promise was not given "to seeds,
as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ," (Gal. 3:16). With
similar absurdity they pretend that he was called the Son of David for no other
reason but because he had been promised, and was at length in due time
manifested. For Paul, after he had called him the Son of David, by immediately
subjoining "according to the flesh", certainly designates his nature. So
also (Rom. 9:5), while declaring him to be "God blessed for ever," he mentions
separately, that, "as concerning the flesh, he was descended from the Jews."
Again if he had not been truly begotten of the seed of David, what is the
meaning of the expression, that he is the "fruit of his loins;" or what the
meaning of the promise, "Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne?"
(Ps. 132:11). Moreover their mode of dealing with the genealogy of Christ, as
given by Matthew, is mere sophistry; for though he reckons up the progenitors
not of Mary, but of Joseph, yet as he was speaking of a matter then generally
understood, he deems it enough to show that Joseph was descended from the seed
of David, since it is certain that Mary was of the same family. Luke goes still
farther, showing that the salvation brought by Christ is common to the whole
human race, inasmuch as Christ, the author of salvation, is descended from
Adam, the common father of us all. I confess, indeed, that the genealogy proves
Christ to be the Son of David only as being descended of the Virgin; but the
new Marcionites, for the purpose of giving a gloss to their heresy, namely to
prove that the body which Christ assumed was unsubstantial, too confidently
maintain that the expression as to seed is applicable only to males, thus
subverting the elementary principles of nature. But as this discussion belongs
not to theology, and the arguments which they adduce are too futile to require
any laboured refutation, I will not touch on matters pertaining to philosophy
and the medical art. It will be sufficient to dispose of the objection drawn
from the statement of Scripture, that Aaron and Jehoiadah married wives out of
the tribe of Judah, and that thus the distinction of tribes was confounded, if
proper descent could come through the female. It is well known, that in regard
to civil order, descent is reckoned through the male; and yet the superiority
on his part does not prevent the female from having her proper share in the
descent. This solution applies to all the genealogies. When Scripture gives a
list of individuals, it often mentions males only. Must we therefore say that
females go for nothing? Nay, the very children know that they are classified
with men. For this reasons wives are said to give children to their husbands,
the name of the family always remaining with the males. Then, as the male sex
has this privilege, that sons are deemed of noble or ignoble birth, according
to the condition of their fathers, so, on the other hand, in slavery, the
condition of the child is determined by that of the mother, as lawyers say,
partus sequitur ventrem. Whence we may infer, that offspring is partly
procreated by the seed of the mother. According to the common custom of
nations, mothers are deemed progenitors, and with this the divine law agrees,
which could have had no ground to forbid the marriage of the uncle with the
niece, if there was no consanguinity between them. It would also be lawful for
a brother and sister uterine to intermarry, when their fathers are different.
But while I admit that the power assigned to the woman is passive, I hold that
the same thing is affirmed indiscriminately of her and of the male. Christ is
not said to have been made by a woman, but of a woman (Gal. 4:4). But some of
this herd, laying aside all shame, publicly ask whether we mean to maintain
that Christ was procreated of the proper seed of a Virgin.246 I, in
my turn, asks whether they are not forced to admit that he was nourished to
maturity in the Virgin's womb. Justly, therefore, we infer from the words of
Matthew, that Christ, inasmuch as he was begotten of Mary, was procreated of
her seed; as a similar generation is denoted when Boaz is said to have been
begotten of Rachab (Mt. 1:5, 16). Matthew does not here describe the Virgin as
the channel through which Christ flowed, but distinguishes his miraculous from
an ordinary birth, in that Christ was begotten by her of the seed of David. For
the same reason for which Isaac is said to be begotten of Abraham, Joseph of
Jacob, Solomon of David, is Christ said to have been begotten of his mother.
The Evangelist has arranged his discourse in this way. Wishing to prove that
Christ derives his descent from David, he deems it enough to state, that he was
begotten of Mary. Hence it follows, that he assumed it as an acknowledged fact,
that Mary was of the same lineage as Joseph.
4. The absurdities which they wish to fasten upon
us are mere puerile calumnies. They reckon it base and dishonouring to Christ
to have derived his descent from men; because, in that case, he could not be
exempted from the common law which includes the whole offspring of Adam,
without exception, under sin. But this difficulty is easily solved by Paul's
antithesis, "As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin"--"even
so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto
justification of life," (Rom. 5:12, 18). Corresponding to this is another
passage, "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord
from heaven," (1 Cor. 15:47). Accordingly, the same apostle, in another
passage, teaching that Christ was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh, that
the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us," distinctly separates
him from the common lot, as being true man, and yet without fault and
corruption (Rom. 8:3). It is childish trifling to maintain, that if Christ is
free from all taint, and was begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret
operation of the Spirit, it is not therefore the seed of the woman that is
impure, but only that of the man. We do not hold Christ to be free from all
taint, merely because he was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but
because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so that the generation was pure and
spotless, such as it would have been before Adam's fall. Let us always bear in
mind, that wherever Scripture adverts to the purity of Christ, it refers to his
true human nature, since it were superfluous to say that God is pure. Moreover,
the sanctification of which John speaks in his seventeenth chapter is
inapplicable to the divine nature. This does not suggest the idea of a twofold
seed in Adam, although no contamination extended to Christ, the generation of
man not being in itself vicious or impure, but an accidental circumstance of
the fall. Hence, it is not strange that Christ, by whom our integrity was to be
restored, was exempted from the common corruption. Another absurdity which they
obtrude upon us--viz. that if the Word of God became incarnate, it must have
been enclosed in the narrow tenement of an earthly body, is sheer petulance.
For although the boundless essence of the Word was united with human nature
into one person, we have no idea of any enclosing. The Son of God descended
miraculously from heaven, yet without abandoning heaven; was pleased to be
conceived miraculously in the Virgin's womb, to live on the earth, and hang
upon the cross, and yet always filled the world as from the beginning.